Patrick,

Thanks again for the exchange.

I hope my point nevertheless got through about Rome: unless you do have some background in its history, its a very less-than-responsible thing to make any claims of understanding what led to its fall and when and what exactly is meant by its “fall”. And then to arbitrarily use it as an example of some equally questionable economic theories behind crypto’s virtue.

You do see people in the crypto space grabbing any which way where they are not informed to find things that reinforce their belief systems re: crypto. This is in lieu facts and reasonable expertise in history, economics and, quite often, technology.

This is what I find so troublesome about the crypto world: the stories being told are mostly made up. And, as many suggest, “telling the story” in crypto is more important. And, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, this is so important for crypto because speaking of value and not being able to attribute it to anything substantive (goods, services, sales, manufacturing, profit/loss, markets, need/demand, efficiency, productivity, governance) requires telling SOMETHING that makes people believe.